Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Sony Games

What To Expect From Sony's Next-Gen PlayStation (wired.com) 131

Daetrin writes: Sony is unwilling to confirm "Playstation 5" as the name, but their next console is "no mere upgrade" according to a report from Wired, which cites Sony executives -- who spoke on the record:

"PlayStation's next-generation console ticks all those boxes, starting with an AMD chip at the heart of the device. (Warning: some alphabet soup follows.) The CPU is based on the third generation of AMD's Ryzen line and contains eight cores of the company's new 7nm Zen 2 microarchitecture. The GPU, a custom variant of Radeon's Navi family, will support ray tracing, a technique that models the travel of light to simulate complex interactions in 3D environments. While ray tracing is a staple of Hollywood visual effects and is beginning to worm its way into $10,000 high-end processors, no game console has been able to manage it. Yet."

The console will also have a solid-state drive and is currently planned to be backward-compatible with both PS4 games and PSVR.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What To Expect From Sony's Next-Gen PlayStation

Comments Filter:
  • super speed SSD is not really needed bigger is needed.

    Or maybe dual drive 1 fast and 1 slower big disk.

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

      A "next-gen" console with an old-school platter drive is a deal-breaker for me. There is no reason, in a 2020 console, why they shouldn't have 2TB+ SSD drives (or at least offer them as an option). There is only so far you can optimize a platter drive (and MS pretty much reached this wall with the Xbox X). At some point you have to bite the bullet and move on to SSD. No one wants long load times anymore, and the technology has gotten cheap and reliable enough now that there is really no excuse for using spi

      • The playstation's (3 & 4) harddrive is officially user-replaceable. Feel free to exchange it for a bigger one (or ssd)
        • People have put SSDs into the PS4 and it made virtually no difference to load times because the PS4's mass storage interface is unbearably slow.

          An SSD in PS5 will only be a win if the mass storage interface also gets an upgrade.

    • What makes you think speedy isn't needed? You need larger because games are getting larger (in size) but expect loading times to remain the same?

      • PS5 1TB super disk only $1499 vs PS5 with sata ssd $799 vs $899 1TB pci-e or just by an apple at $1999

        • Write cycles are going to be low since games are basically write once + patches. You can easily get away with QLC, which is pushing 1TB down near the $100 mark at retail for even M.2 (at SATA speeds).

  • a whole bunch of fancy marketing speak that makes it sound like the console will be the second coming of Jesus Christ. But its actual release will just be a powerful computer with a Sony emblem on it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but come on, this'll be the 5th one. We've seen this show before.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )

      The problem with PC gaming is the difference of quality between two different PC's Depending on your video card, your CPU, how much Ram you have... This makes some games run superior to a console, and on a slightly different PC (Still modern) you have bugs and performance problems.

      You get a Playstation or an XBox and match their names, you mostly expect the games to run consistently.
      The biggest point of branding, isn't that a brand is superior, but a brand is consistent.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Comparing Ps3 to Ps5, you think there's consistency there? Then you have the whims of developers on top of that. Then you still have bugs and performance issues, frame stuttering even on your "consistent brand"

        PC's are modular and not actively trying to tie your hands, that's the real difference. Sony doesn't want you using their box for anything that doesn't make them money, and if you try, they'll brick you.

        • by tepples ( 727027 ) <.tepples. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @12:21PM (#58445178) Homepage Journal

          Comparing Ps3 to Ps5, you think there's consistency there?

          Yes. There are consistency among PlayStation 3 consoles, consistency among PlayStation 4 consoles, and consistency among whatever Sony decides to call the next generation.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            He compared all PC's to all consoles, not individual models. You can buy "gaming PC's" fully configured that are entirely as consistent one to the next as any PS-x console. One could argue there's more consistency in PC's,
            as you have a platform that can play ANY games that come along and as they're modular you don't have to chuck the entire $500 initial investment to upgrade the graphics output/resolution/etc.

            Just face it, PC's are consoles without the handcuffs. If it's too hard, too much trouble to ins

          • by Anonymous Coward

            "consistency among PlayStation 4 consoles"

            Incorrect. Hardware change is present in varying PS4 versions.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MBGMorden ( 803437 )

          PC's are modular and not actively trying to tie your hands, that's the real difference. Sony doesn't want you using their box for anything that doesn't make them money, and if you try, they'll brick you.

          Do you not understand that this is what many gamers want?

          I've got a decently powerful PC that I can play games on, but typically I use it more for coding and web browsing. When I actually want to game, I more often than not use one of my consoles. I don't have to worry about compatibility, whether or not this game runs well on my PC or whether or not I need to upgrade, and I can just sit back and play it on my couch without having route an HDMI cable around the room or anything.

          Yes, games on the PC can lo

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Gamers WANT to be bricked, DRM'ed, and stuck with unfixable problems, that's your argument now? Console retards I swear, you deserve to be raped as you are.

              " I take advancements and they're nice but honestly PS3 graphics are "good enough" for me. " - Now you're going to say PS3 should be "good enough for anybody" right?

            By that argument nobody would be buying new consoles, genius.

          • by tepples ( 727027 )

            I don't have to worry about compatibility

            You do have to worry about compatibility in the sense of whether a particular game is ported or not. There are more PC exclusives than PS3 exclusives or PS4 exclusives. And even when a game is on both PC and PS3 or PS4, the fan-made quality-of-life mods to the single-player tend to be PC exclusive.

          • Do you not understand that this is what many gamers want?

            Along with a hole in the head, I suppose...

          • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

            I've got a decently powerful PC that I can play games on, but typically I use it more for coding and web browsing. When I actually want to game, I more often than not use one of my consoles. I don't have to worry about compatibility, whether or not this game runs well on my PC or whether or not I need to upgrade, and I can just sit back and play it on my couch without having route an HDMI cable around the room or anything.

            I'll one-up you here. I have a full-on gaming rig PC, and even *I* still play most of

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Yes, games on the PC can look a little better, but I'm long past worrying about graphics these days. I take advancements and they're nice but honestly PS3 graphics are "good enough" for me. I could live with that level of quality indefinitely and would be fine. And I'm fine with those consoles being used only for what Sony/MS intended them for. I don't have any use for them. Hell I don't even watch Netflix on them because it feels like a waste of power - I use a Roku instead.

            Some folks aren't rich enough to afford a whole separate piece of equipment for each thing they want to do.

            Not everyone can afford to spend $400 on a mid-range play box that will only play a very select range of titles pre-approved by [M$ | Sony | Nintendo] which very often cost $60 new, $100 on a netflix box with $15 subscription on top of that, and $300 on a work + web browser box.

            Some folks don't mind spending, say, $600 on a machine that can do all of the above with no extra payments and can be easily a

            • You might have a point if your numbers stacked up. A Ps4 costs £250. A roku stick, amazon firestick, or whatever, costs less than £50 - usually a lot less. And you don't even need the roku since the playstation has Netflix and a lot more.

              A gaming Pc is £600 minimum. A reasonable graphics card alone is the price of a PlayStation.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I'm a game developer. And none of that has ever been a problem.

        Every main quality level is like a console generation, has certain minimum expectations, and the game enigne checks your hardware to see which one is completely fulfilled by your hardware.
        The only difference is that PC games ship with the assets for all levels, while for ever, consoles we support, We only add one.
        (It's a bit more complicated, since screen site can still vary. And the checker is much smarter, often having per-GPU profiles.)

        In the

      • This makes some games run superior to a console, and on a slightly different PC (Still modern) you have bugs and performance problems.

        Pretty much no. You need an incredibly low end system to be beaten by a console these days with even the most entry level "gaming pc" easiliy out performing consoles. What causes performance problems and bugs are stupid developers who shit on the PC release by just copying and pasting a console game to it without even the cursory care needed to consider a decent platform.

        Stupid shit like hardcoding a 900p resolution into your engine so that PC gamers who dared to select a different resolution ended up with

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        The problem with consoles are, they are well and truly powerful enough to serve as a home computer and because of greed are crippled and blocked from doing so. What I want to know is whether they next playstation will allow a VM Sony Linux Distribution, to allow normal computer access, for browsing, communications, document writing et al, run the full suite of typical FOSS Linux applications. Now that would make it far more useful and a much bigger threat to M$'s monopoly.

        Don't be dicks Sony, do a Linux dis

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Consoles are usually low-end PCs by the time they're released, plus lockdown and a limited input device. That's it.

      Which is no surprise, given that they have to cost a fifth of a new high/mid-range PC.

      Somebod calculated the SoC to/cost about $65. My Ryzen 3 cost more.

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

      No marketing department ever won an award for "It's like the last generation, but better." So yeah, fuel up the Hyperbole & Buzzword Train and get ready for a ride.

  • What really has my interest is that it seems that it will be compatible with PSVR

    I've not gotten as much use out of PSVR as I thought I would but it's always a hit with friends (Fruit Ninja VR or watching friends get motion sick playing DoomVR in full locomotion mode is always a hoot)

    The idea that it will be backward compatible with PSVR makes me happy as it'll give me more time to feel I really got my money's worth out of it as more titles drop

    Though it also means they're likely ~not~ going to change their

    • Yeah, yeah, I know if I really cared that much I'd go get an HTC Vive

      A friend of my son was over visiting & tried out my PSVR, and he said that it was better than his HTC Vive, especially the motion tracking. Also, I got mine for $200 on sale at Walmart including Gran Turismo Sport VR. Only down side is I don't have two PS Move controllers to take full advantage of it. I have an old PS Move set that has only one wand & one hand controller.

      • I forgot to mention I have a PS4 Slim, not a Pro. The performance is still pretty good.
        • Yeah I have a standard PS4 not a pro... and agree it's still quite good. Sure I wouldn't mind a pro, but the 4 is plenty fine .. though I had to get an external USB drive as those VR titles are a bit space hungry.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    People here are expected to know these things! This is not US Weekly, you know?

  • Sadness, disappointment, features you don't want or need, and still no version of kodi.

  • and true 16 bit. None of this "8 bit CPU with 16 bit graphics".

    I'm still kind of on the fence about CD-ROM vs cartridge though...
  • "backward-compatible"
    Remember to buy some pop-corn.

  • by DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @12:22PM (#58445186)

    The whole point of buying a video game console was to not have to worry about different "tiers" of quality and performance like you have to with PCs.

    With the recent generation pulling this "PS4/Xbox-Lite" crap where games run at worse performance on the cheaper consoles, it makes me wonder why should I even purchase a console when a desktop will be infinitely better in terms of cost, performance, and longevity? That ignores the fact that I could easily set on up to run in the living room.

    Consoles nowadays nothing more than overpriced specialized computers for the living room, of which there are many free options available for PCs if I so desire to go that route.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The point of standardized hardware is that all games will run on the system.

      Here's what PCs will never do. Have a game come out that can run on high end hardware from 5 years ago at 60 FPS.

      The point of consoles is to have a standardized hardware platform for all game to run on. That's it.

      The shift now is that there will be major and minor releases of hardware. The PS4 is the PS4 pro. Just think of it the 4.0 and then 4.1. The PS 5.0 will provide new features that the PS4 hardware could not support. Th

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I have a 7 year old high end PC for my GF, and nearly ALL games still run in good quality settings! The GPU can keep up with a 1050!
        It's even better than for consoles! Because with old consoles, you just won't get recent games AT ALL. At least with PCs, you can scale them down until they do.

        And as a game deveroper... games *always* had to be designed to be perfectly scalable for a wide range of performance. Do you think we design with only one console at one resolution ever in mind?

    • it makes me wonder why should I even purchase a console when a desktop will be infinitely better in terms of cost, performance, and longevity?

      I call shenanigans. Have you priced a gaming PC? The most expensive console costs the same as the graphics card alone. You cannot get a decent gaming PC for the price of a console. I like my gaming PC, but I paid a hell of a lot more than any of my friends did for their consoles. You could buy a switch, PS5 Pro, and XBox One X for the price of an entry level gaming system.

      Also, I think it's better to get a nicer experience for more money much sooner, so I welcome tiers. I will probably even pick up

      • Sure. When you're throwing a GTX1080 into your 4K gaming system.

        On the other hand you can throw a GTX1030 or even less at the system and happily game away with Xbox level quality. Hell for all the talk about how performance of Battlefield V sucked with a RTX2080 with all settings at high, if you play like a console gamer with average settings, average draw distance, crappy textures, no ray tracing, and resolution low enough that you can cut through a tough steak with the shitty aliasing effects then you don

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Sure. When you're throwing a GTX1080 into your 4K gaming system.

          On the other hand you can throw a GTX1030 or even less at the system and happily game away with Xbox level quality. Hell for all the talk about how performance of Battlefield V sucked with a RTX2080 with all settings at high, if you play like a console gamer with average settings, average draw distance, crappy textures, no ray tracing, and resolution low enough that you can cut through a tough steak with the shitty aliasing effects then you don't need a GPU at all. Even Battlefield 5 runs greater than 30fps at 1080p on an AMD APU.

          You've taken us right back to the beginning of this thread with what exactly is wrong having a -lite version of each console, because it's still less fuss than all that ^

          Been there done that already, driver updates every week that magically squeeze performance out of thin air for new games (why spend more for relatively small performance gains in hardware when software updates swing performance so much?) while old games stop working right and slow down, bragging about superior draw distance when the guy tha

    • I wrote a few years ago about why people submit to console inflexibility. The reasons I came up with [pineight.com] include these:

      - Less chance of ending up with "fake game" shovelware [gamesindustry.biz] even worse than E.T., Chase the Chuck Wagon, and other poster children of the 1983 crash
      - No worry about reading the tea leaves that are PC game system requirements
      - Little variation among PCs in an online multiplayer pickup group of strangers giving nobody an unfair competitive advantage
      - Less cheating in an online multiplayer pickup group of strangers due to no mods
      - No need for antivirus
      - Offline use of disc games is more convenient for gamers in rural areas or deployed on military bases
      - Less hardware variation means less chance of driver conflicts
      - Living room friendly case by default

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      The whole point of buying a video game console was to not have to worry about different "tiers" of quality and performance like you have to with PCs.

      With the recent generation pulling this "PS4/Xbox-Lite" crap where games run at worse performance on the cheaper consoles, it makes me wonder why should I even purchase a console when a desktop will be infinitely better in terms of cost, performance, and longevity? That ignores the fact that I could easily set on up to run in the living room.

      Why not? The Xbox O

    • by Anonymous Coward

      PS4s cost what £250 now? Can a PC that costs that much play the same games as well? No. At launch cost? Nope. Mid-life? No chance. You could get a second hand PC that would but then it's second hand.

      Suppose you want to play games on your nice big TV screen on the sofa. No problem with a PS4. With a PC you better be able to tolerate that hoover sound or invest in watercooling and a sound dampened case to cut the noise down. This is extra cash. Oh you don't want a 3ft high ATX case next to y

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Free" if you already own a desktop PC, which only a tiny number of people do.

      A gaming laptop is 4 times the price of a home console.

      Gaming consoles are a bad deal for the small number of people who can and do build PCs, but that's a small minority of the market.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @02:03PM (#58445702)

      it makes me wonder why should I even purchase a console when a desktop will be infinitely better in terms of cost, performance, and longevity?

      Playing on the couch with a controller? I mean if you're single you may get away with a battle station in your living room, but for the rest of us ... well we own consoles AND PCs for that reason.

    • I still have my original launch PS4 and games run fine on them. Do you recall how games were at the end of previous generations? Developers really start pushing the envelope in terms of visual fidelity and you see that take a priority over frame rate.

      For example Shadow of the Colossus ran at a low frame rate on the PS2 but it was trying to do things like simulate physics, draw crepuscular rays, use motion blur and bloom lighting, and present a sprawling landscape with giant beasts.

      It's the same story with a

    • 4 Console SKUs (Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Two) is a LOT fewer variations for a developer to target than then billion hardware\driver\utility\patch variations in Windows.

  • Every game will have a requirement that some portion of its processing be done on centralized servers, for a monthly fee, without which they won't play.
  • Poisoned the well. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @12:48PM (#58445316)

    The video gaming industry is the biggest dog and pony show around. Every few years another console generation comes around, and the 'retro' genre grows.

    At this point, you cannot even buy a full AAA game outright on launch-day. You are instead offered a framework of minimal features, and are expected to pay again a few more times for 'expansions' and 'DLC', which are just code for 'the rest of the game'. Let's not forget loot-boxes, micro-transactions, GB scale day 1 updates, data harvesting stores, always online requirements, and the death of the second-hand market.

    All of this despite the truly massive library of 'retro' games with no such shenanigans for pennies on the dollar. The big players have to make big PR noise every few years before the next generation develops an interest in what the older gamers are playing, and to keep the older gamers from realizing they already have more than they can play in a single lifetime.

    I used to spend a sizable portion of my income on gaming, and it used to be worth it. Before that, my childhood was fixing and playing the rich kids broken consoles and computers. I grew into a respectable engineer on the skills I earned doing that, but now I buy maybe 1-2 games a year.

    Had I played my Fender instead, I'd be fucking a rockstar. Today they learn those fucking obnoxious dance moves, and how to talk shit like a racist-sailor-criminal.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      At this point, you cannot even buy a full AAA game outright on launch-day. You are instead offered a framework of minimal features, and are expected to pay again a few more times for 'expansions' and 'DLC', which are just code for 'the rest of the game'. Let's not forget loot-boxes, micro-transactions, GB scale day 1 updates, data harvesting stores, always online requirements, and the death of the second-hand market.

      Hence the benefit of PC. Barring the FOMO(god, I hate that acronym) crowd with no self control, just wait a year or 2 for a GOTY edition or the game +DLC to go on sale for a significant discount, and buy it then. The last game I paid full price for on launch (I would have most likely bought Metro Exodus if it weren't for the EPICally chickenshit move they pulled) was RS2: Vietnam (241 hours played on that and 605 hrs on RO2, so worth the investment) since it is a pure multiplayer game. I never buy a sing

      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        just wait a year or 2 for a GOTY edition or the game +DLC to go on sale for a significant discount, and buy it then.

        Provided the online multiplayer's matchmaking server hasn't already been turned off.

    • At this point, you cannot even buy a full AAA game outright on launch-day. You are instead offered a framework of minimal features, and are expected to pay again a few more times for 'expansions' and 'DLC', which are just code for 'the rest of the game'. Let's not forget loot-boxes, micro-transactions, GB scale day 1 updates, data harvesting stores, always online requirements, and the death of the second-hand market.

      That's why I always wait a couple of years before getting the new console. There's usually a good price drop & then you can get the GOTY versions with all the DLC for half the price. I don't do online because there's too many spazzes that play.

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

      At this point, you cannot even buy a full AAA game outright on launch-day. You are instead offered a framework of minimal features, and are expected to pay again a few more times for 'expansions' and 'DLC', which are just code for 'the rest of the game'. Let's not forget loot-boxes, micro-transactions, GB scale day 1 updates, data harvesting stores, always online requirements, and the death of the second-hand market.

      Those are side-effects of game prices that haven't kept pace with skyrocketting development

    • by sad_ ( 7868 )

      All of this despite the truly massive library of 'retro' games with no such shenanigans for pennies on the dollar.

      hmm, you should check out those prices on retro games, they are certainly not pennies. unless you're talking about utter rubbish games...
      unless you go the emulator and downloading roms route.

  • The key word I'm seeing is "expense". I used to fund a videogame obsession on a relative pittance back in the day, but the next generation will need a full-on salary to keep up with Sony :( Mind you, even that starts to look reasonable when I see teens carrying iPhones everywhere!
    • Gaming is cheaper than ever.

      Here are some console prices, adjusted for inflation to 2019 dollars:

      Atari 2600: $850.19
      Nintendo NES: $475.43
      Sega Genesis: $392.84
      Super Nintendo: $374.71
      3DO: $1207.11 (guess everyone was right to mock the price!)

      It gets even more interesting if you just stick with Playstations:
      PS1: $502.02
      PS2: $443.96
      PS3: $762.10
      PS4: $435.73

      Games have gotten cheaper too. Pitfall for the 2600? $80.70. Secret of Mana for the SNES? $141.62. PS1-era games? $67.16 budget titles to $83.95 manlines. PS2

  • Nvidia's 2000 series starts at $350 and goes up to $1200. What are these, "$10,000 high-end processors", mentioned in the article?
    • Ah, looks like either Wired caught the mistake or someone made one in summarizing. It currently reads, "While ray tracing is a staple of Hollywood visual effects and is beginning to worm its way into high-end processors and Nvidia's recently announced RTX line, no game console has been able to manage it. Yet."

This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.

Working...